Today, On 16th July,The Kerala High Court dismissed the plea over delay in CBFC clearance for Suresh Gopi’s film, now titled ‘Janaki V vs. State of Kerala’. With certification granted, the film is scheduled for release tomorrow under the revised name.
The Kerala High Court dismissed a plea challenging the delay in issuing a censor certificate for a Malayalam film featuring Union Minister Suresh Gopi.
This decision came after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) granted certification to the movie, which was re-titled to “Janaki V vs. State of Kerala.”
The CBFC had previously objected to the original title, “Janaki v. State of Kerala,” due to concerns that the name Janaki, associated with the Hindu goddess Sita, was being linked to a rape survivor in the film.
The board indicated it would certify the film if the filmmakers included the character’s full name, either “Janaki V” or “V Janaki,” in the title and muted the name “Janaki” during a courtroom scene.
The filmmakers complied with these requests, leading to the CBFC finally issuing a censor certificate and allowing the film’s release on July 17.
Justice N Nagaresh acknowledged these developments in his order and closed the petition. He clarified that the use of previous teasers or promotional materials featuring the earlier title would not expose the producers to legal liability.
“It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted a modified version of the movie and Central Board of Film Certification has issued a certificate on 11.07.2025. The prime grievance of the petitioner now stands redressed.”
The judge had previously viewed the film on July 5 in Kochi and stated that there was no reason a rape survivor seeking justice could not be named Janaki. He also criticized the CBFC for hindering free speech and artistic expression.
Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, representing the CBFC, informed the Court that while the Board had initially proposed 96 cuts, it was now only requesting two specific changes. The first was to adjust the title from “Janaki” to “Janaki V” or “V Janaki,” aligning it with the character’s full name, Janaki Vidhyadharan. The second was to mute the name “Janaki” during a courtroom cross-examination scene.
Advocate Haris Beeran, representing the producers, agreed to the second change. Initially resistant to the first, he later informed the Court that the producers would amend the film’s subtitle to “Janaki V v/s State of Kerala.”
Chandrachud assured the Court that the CBFC would grant censor certification within three days once the revised version was submitted. This has now been completed, leading to the closure of the case before the High Court.
The film narrates the story of a rape survivor named “Janaki” and was originally slated for release on June 27. The production company, M/s Cosmos Entertainments, filed a writ petition after the CBFC failed to issue a certificate, despite an application submitted online on June 12.
The CBFC had previously argued that using the name “Janaki” in a film with themes of sexual violence could offend religious sentiments.
In a detailed affidavit, the CBFC explained that its concerns were not solely based on the use of a religious name but also on the character’s portrayal, as the rape survivor faces multiple traumatic experiences, including degrading questions in a courtroom.
The affidavit stated,
“In the subject film, when the lead character who is named after Goddess Sita/Janaki is raped, she is then aided by a man belonging to one particular religious community and is cross-examined and asked harrowing questions by a person belonging to another religious community. This religious dichotomy in the treatment of a character bearing Goddess Sita’s sacred name has the potential to inflame communal tensions and create divisive narratives between religious groups,”
The CBFC argued that such a portrayal diminishes the sanctity of Goddess Sita and risks inciting communal and religious tensions.
Advocates Anand B Menon, Azhar Assees, and Nabil Khader also represented the producers.
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer